from the but-of-course dept

For many years now, we've pointed out that so much of what drives the fear-mongering about the "intelligence-industrial complex" is pretty simple: money. As in lots and lots of money. All of these intelligence programs require both staffing and systems, and almost all of that goes to a group of well-known big companies who (I'm sure, coincidentally...) also happen to be some of the biggest campaign funders for so many politicians. The folks at MapLight decided to take a look around and noticed that those who voted to keep the NSA's ability to scoop up data on every American's phone call (i.e., rejecting the Amash amendment) had received more than twice as much money from defense contractors as the reps who voted to defund the program:

Representatives voting to continue the NSA's dragnet surveillance programs received on average 122 percent more money ($41,635) from defense contractors and other defense industry interests than did representatives who voted to end the programs (18,765).

Representative Justin Amash, R-Mich., the chief sponsor of the amendment, has received $1,400 from defense contractors and other defense industry interests.

Representative Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., has received $526,600 from defense contractors and other defense industry interests, more than any other member of the House. He voted to continue the programs.

In fact, as some have pointed out, of the top 10 recipients of defense conctractor money, only one -- Rep. Jim Moran -- voted for the Amash amendment. In fact, if you look at the top 27 recipients (the first page of the document embedded below), you see a grand total of four votes to kill the amendment, with the rest voting to continue scooping up data on all Americans. Meanwhile, on the flip side, there are only 26 members of the House who received no money from defense contractors (they really spread it around), and 16 of them voted to end the dragnet surveillance.

Of course, it's not true that purely money "buys" votes -- in some cases it's the other way around, in which votes result in contributions. But, either way, it's no less questionable in terms of how Congress sets its priorities. And, just from the standpoint of how it looks to the American public (and to those around the globe), it's really, really bad. On top of all of this, I'd imagine that most of those at the top of this list have little fear of being voted out of office, because even if they do they'll get a cushy "job" from these private companies.

from the transparency-needed dept

Husband and wife Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson are well-known for an earlier "leaking" of "intelligence" information that resulted in Plame being outed as a covert CIA officer. The two have now written a powerful op-ed for the Guardian pointing out that the "intelligence-industrial complex" is completely out of control and very ripe for abuse:

We are now dealing with a vast intelligence-industrial complex that is largely unaccountable to its citizens. This alarming, unchecked growth of the intelligence sector and the increasingly heavy reliance on subcontractors to carry out core intelligence tasks – now estimated to account for approximately 60% of the intelligence budget – have intensified since the 9/11 attacks and what was, arguably, our regrettable over-reaction to them.

They point out that the size of the operation, the reliance on private companies and contractors more focused on profits than what's best for the country, combined with the massive amount of secrecy all needs to change:

On this spying business, officials from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to self-important senators are, in effect, telling Americans not to worry: it's not that big a deal, and "trust us" because they're keeping US citizens safe. This position must be turned on its head and opened up to a genuine discussion about the necessary, dynamic tension between security and privacy. As it now stands, these programs are ripe for abuse unless we establish ground rules and barriers between authentic national security interests and potential political chicanery.

Separately, they point out that the focus on Ed Snowden is nothing more than a "sideshow" which distracts from the real issue: which is just how insanely out of control the intelligence infrastructure of the country has become.